Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote:

heard that the CRT sold for the Model I had some safety concerns? I think
that was just a rebadged RCA TV set with the tuner section removed?


Yes
Although I think that it is likely that Tandy bought them before a tuner 
was put in, rather than remove already installed tuners.


In early episodes of "Married With Children", you can see that model of TV 
on Al Bundy's kitchen counter.   (off-white, not battleship gray/"Mercedes 
Silver")


The signal cable for it comes out of the hole where the volume control 
would have been.


The open area where the tuner would have been is large enough to mount 
a full-height floppy with a small power supply and a mumetal shield.




Supposedly the RFI restrictions is one of the reasons that Apple didn't
include an RF modulator under the hood (and presumably TI on the 99/4(a)).


even IBM.  CGA boards, even Compaq's have a 4 pin Berg "RF modulator 
connector".

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

CP/M ran on the Model I and the Model III.  CP/M was a very adaptable OS.


CP/M required RAM where the TRS80 Model 1 and 3 had ROM.

An unmodified TRS80 (model 1 or model 3) could not run unmodified CP/M.

FMG? marketed a relocated CP/M for the TRS80.  But, moving CP/M to a 
different area of memory wasn't a satisfactory solution.  It worked, and 
was CP/M, but few commercial CP/M programs would work with it, since 
they assumed that the TPA (Transient Program Area) would be where it 
usually was for CP/M.  But, it let me use TRS80 Model 1 to teach beginning 
basics of CP/M in my disk operating systems class.  (such as creating a 
zero length file to restart a program)


Parasitic Engineering (Howard Fullmer (later chief engineer at Morrow) 
had a company in Berkeley) marketed a sandwich board for the CPU, and 
another for the FDC, that altered the memory map, and also provided for 
8" drives.


Omikron in Berkeley made a similar setup.

I had both.  Neither were cheap.


Later, in the Model 3 days, there were some more relocations and adapters 
for CP/M, such as FEC, Holmes, Hurricane labs, Memory Merchant, Micro 
Craft. Was Montezuma Micro (Ron Jones?) for Model 3 or model 4?




Tandy wasn't the only one who tried to do better.  Look at the NEC APC.
Quad Density Double Sided 8" disks. High density color graphics with 256
colors.  Dismal failure in the market because it wasn't fully "IBM
Compatible".
The follow-on NEC APC/III was a great big step backwards.


Or DEC Rainbow.  Or Sirius/Victor 9000.  Tandy wasn't the only one who 
thought that a "better" MS-DOS machine would be preferable to a clone.
There were many companies who made MS-DOS machines with various levels of 
compatibility, who had 80 track per side (96tpi) drives, such 
as Burroughs ET2120, Canon AS100, Rainbow, Eagle, IBM PC/JX, Monroe, 
Otrona (although their documentation writers misinterpreted 50h (80) as 
50! as discussed here 6 months ago), Siemens, Televideo TS1603, Toshiba 
T300, . . .


The Toshiba T300, for example, was reasonably compatible, other than 80 
track per side disk format, and they swapped the video memory location 
between CGA and MDA.  I ran PC-Write on one of them (I patched PC-Write 
for the other video memory).  Later, I loaned 2 of them to the California 
NMRI division of Toshiba for them to read disks.  Unfortunately, they 
returned them after they were finished.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

> On Apr 27, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Like you I learned a lot due to all the variety of
> differing machines that were available in the market early on. From a
> business perspective I don't think it made a lot of sense however to have
> so many internally competing models.
> 
> Of course then, I guess you could argue that Atari probably had the most
> cohesive set of computers, but that didn't necessarily translate to great
> success. I guess that did mostly work for Apple with the II line, save for
> the major III distraction.

This is actually a pretty interesting topic, and relevant both to 
decision-making today and to classic computers. How did, and how should have, 
companies select architectures (CPU families, bus structures, peripheral 
strategies, etc.) to ensure continued viability? Some examples I see and my 
simple-minded scorecard below. I’m trying to stick with hardware vendors, so I 
left Microsoft and NeXT (possibly unjustly) off the list, but in some cases 
(Tandy? TI? Digital Group?) I think the imbalance between hardware development 
and software development was a huge factor in the company’s success or lack 
thereof.
Comments or corrections most welcome!

Digital Group: support 3 (?) different processor families on the same bus 
architecture (sort of)
technically very impressive, but flexibility -> cost -> low market 
share; not long-term successful

DEC: support almost every available CPU, and invent some of your own besides.
since supported everything, had price/performance dominance in most 
categories, but let *one* category slip away - business desktops - where much 
of the money was. Successful for a long time, but development costs overtook 
revenue eventually.

Apple: support one CPU, switching product line to another CPU as needed.
Able to pick architectures to create new markets; limited 
interoperability but able to survive on single-market dominance (hobbyists, 
then education, then graphic design, then PDA’s…)

Tandy: Support every architecture, often 2 at a time in the same box:
Mixed record, some winners and some losers; Software development often 
lagging sorely behind hardware, ultimately not successful.

TI: Single-architecture, lock-in software ecosystem
Substantial money-loser even with potentially world-beating hardware 
(CPU); software achilles heel along with architecture bottlenecks on 
performance.

others?

There are many complicating factors, of course. E.g. embedded systems 
have very different requirements from CAD workstations. Should a company 
maintain different architectures to support both, and how compatible should 
they be? 
It looks to me like really strong support for outside developers is key 
for hardware providers, whether that is in the form of a cheap and effective 
development toolkit and good developer’s forum or a completely open 
architecture.

- Mark

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:


> I see that the actual fragmentation is about how each and everyone got in
> touch with computers, personal or mainframe or whatever! Me, I was in
> junior high and usually understood everything in the math class by the
> first 15 minutes, after which I would become restless (bored) and the
> teacher would send me several buildings away to inquire about the room
> temperature of the computer room, which hosted an HP3000 system with
> several terminals (that included primitive graphics capabilities via serial
> connection!).  It was 1978, and I learned BASIC right there. Afterwards, it
> was Apple II and their Franklin clones as a freshman, running UCSD
> Pascal... in 1982.  Later it was the Z80 card in the same computers,
> running CPM, but just for the sake of using the Z80 assembler tools.  And
> we were using also the said Apple II to impersonate card readers that would
> send jobs to the IBM 4381, as a sophomore... My dad bought me an HP71B
> calculator in 1984, and that really was when my numerical math skills
> progressed.  I still do that for a living.  And the height of my BS
> years... getting to run MATLAB in an IBM-AT with a math co-processor.
> Later, as a teacher, getting my first BITNET email account in 1987,
> learning XENIX, wiring phonenet for the Mac network at the university, then
> as a grad student (1989) using VAX machines at UW-Madison, but also Apollo
> machines, Sun 4/50  machines, and HP-300 machines... and in1990, I
> telnet-ed to UCSD to run jobs in a Cray at UCSD...  whoa, such memories...
>

Don't get me wrong. Like you I learned a lot due to all the variety of
differing machines that were available in the market early on. From a
business perspective I don't think it made a lot of sense however to have
so many internally competing models.

Of course then, I guess you could argue that Atari probably had the most
cohesive set of computers, but that didn't necessarily translate to great
success. I guess that did mostly work for Apple with the II line, save for
the major III distraction.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:06 AM, geneb via cctalk 
wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>
> Then they upgraded the model 1 to reduce the cords and cables, and made
>> the Model 3.  I don't know whether the resemblance to the Northstar
>> Dimension was deliberate.
>>
>>
> I think the primary driver for the Model III was that the Model I would no
> longer pass the FCC emission tests due to regulation changes.
>
>
I've heard this before too, which is all the more curious considering that
the original Atari 400/800 machines were hampered in their construction due
to RFI restrictions by the FCC earlier on that were relaxed later. I wonder
how much better off Atari would have been if they were able to fit a simple
metal shield instead of that crazy cast metal PCB enclosure. I have also
heard that the CRT sold for the Model I had some safety concerns? I think
that was just a rebadged RCA TV set with the tuner section removed?

Supposedly the RFI restrictions is one of the reasons that Apple didn't
include an RF modulator under the hood (and presumably TI on the 99/4(a)).

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Peter Cetinski via cctalk]

Excuse my long post, but I get excited whenever I can talk about the Model 16. 
:)  I will expound a bit on what was already mentioned.

The Model 16 was an engineering marvel.  It was released in 1982 in the same 
form factor as the venerable Model II.  It was essentially an upgraded Model 
II.  In fact, the Model II could be upgraded to mostly Model 16 specs via an 
upgrade kit.  The 16 was a dual processor machine with 2 independent computer 
systems running in parallel, one a Z80 and the other a MC68000.  The Z80 side 
of the machine ran just as it did on the Model II.  This was a big advantage in 
that the machine could run the entire Model II library of programs.  The 68K 
subsystem consisted of a CPU card and one or more memory cards which shared 
their own independent bus (via ribbon cables) from the Z80 bus.  

When the 16 was running with a 68K OS, the Z80 subsystem controlled all I/O via 
the main computer bus.  The Z80 and 68K communicate via shared memory in the 
68K memory space with both sides essentially rapidly polling certain locations 
for requests and responses placed in memory.  There was a facility available in 
the 16 for the 68K to interrupt the Z80, but since the Model II with the Model 
16 upgrade did not have this capability, no operating systems took advantage of 
this feature AFAIK since the percentage of machines using the upgrade was 
significant.  One cool feature is that the Z80 could bank switch in 16K of any 
location on the 68K memory so Z80 programs run on the Model 16 could use the 
68K memory without a 68K OS. 

When it was released in 1982, the Model 16 came with TRSDOS-16.  This was 
essentially a MC68000 runtime that ran on the 68K boards.  With TRSDOS-16, the 
Z80 side of the machine ran the Z80 TRSDOS-II OS.  A huge issue was that the 
Model 16 was released with almost no software ready to take advantage of the 
68K.  This was a classic case of the hardware way ahead of the software.  This 
resulted in Tandy actually including a copy of the Assembler 16 with every 
Model 16 sold so that customers could write their own software.  TRSDOS-16 had 
many limitations, a few of which was that it was only single user and that the 
assembler used non-standard 68K mnemonics.

Tandy knew they needed a multi-user system for the system to succeed, and was 
considering Unos as the solution when for whatever reason they could not make 
that happen.  They then pivoted to XENIX which was finally released maybe a 
year or so after the machine.  The initial releases were rushed and as a result 
very buggy.  Tandy lost a lot of market time advantage due to this fumble.  
However, XENIX ultimately did well on the platform.  So much so that a year 
later the Model 16B, which was a 68K version of the Model II’s successor, the 
Model 12, was the most popular Unix based workstation on the market.  An 
upgrade of the machine to the Tandy 6000 a year or so later saw an increase in 
processing power.  But by then, we all know the story of the IBM PCs 
architecture dominance of the market and Tandy’s attempts to succeed in that 
area.  This caused internal business conflicts which eventually doomed the 
MC68000 architecture at the company.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[geneb via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

Then they upgraded the model 1 to reduce the cords and cables, and made the 
Model 3.  I don't know whether the resemblance to the Northstar Dimension was 
deliberate.




I think the primary driver for the Model III was that the Model I would no 
longer pass the FCC emission tests due to regulation changes.


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 04/26/2018 10:00 PM, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> D'ya mean like an automobile company making more than one model?  Surely
>> there is no need for Toyota to make both a Corolla AND a Camry!
>>
>>
> Hmm... not really sure about that comparison. After all, it's not like the
> Corolla and Camry need different fuel and/or travel on separate roads.
> Plus, I expect that despite their many differences there are probably quite
> a few fundamental similarities (similar stereos, HVAC controls, brake
> components, etc).
>
> The Model 1 was a wild venture into a field that they knew little about,

At that point in time it was a field everybody knew little about.
>> and didn't know what to expect.
>> Ask Allison about what they expected.
>> It turned out that what they made was surprisingly close to correct for
>> people like US.
>> Well, other than 16 lines by 64 characters of B, and a memory map that
>> was not compatible with CP/M.
>>
> I guess they fixed that by the time the 4 came along.

CP/M ran on the Model I and the Model III.  CP/M was a very adaptable OS.

>
>
>
>> But what about pocket computers, PDAs, calculators?  Have to come out with
>> some offerings there.
>>
> Well, like I said before. I think you could easily dismiss the calculators
> and PDAs, since they were more of an appliance (i.e. create text documents
> that are easily interchangeable with other machines). Heck even a lot of
> the early PDAs could create spreadsheets that were compatible with Lotus
> 1-2-3, even moreso in some cases they were built in applications.
>
>
>> Would they have been more successful if the model 2000 had been a PC
>> clone, instead of "better than"?
>>
> Well, in some respects they eventually managed to do that with the Tandy
> 1000s... some incompatibilities aside.

Tandy wasn't the only one who tried to do better.  Look at the NEC APC.
Quad Density Double Sided 8" disks. High density color graphics with 256
colors.  Dismal failure in the market because it wasn't fully "IBM 
Compatible".
The follow-on NEC APC/III was a great big step backwards.

bill

RE: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, W2HX via cctalk wrote:
All that "fragmentation" to me was wonderful. Different models, 
different capabilities it was magical!


There are two different interpretations of "fragmentation".
Both are implicitly negative.
"Any color you want, as long as it is black" (1909) saves the company a 
LOT of money, by only having one model.


1) Overlapping product lines.  Such as Toyota Corolla and Camry, or 
Honda Civic and Accord, or TRS80 Model 1 and 2, or model 1 and Coco, or 
Model 100 and pocket computer(s).
Company competes against itself, and can never manage to claim "best 
selling model".


2) TOO diverse.  Such as Toyota Prius and Diesel Tundra pickup, or Honda 
Unicub/U3x and Ridgeline, or Coco and Model 16
Company has to support too many different things, and might not ever 
develop the expertise in some of the lines.


(The Honda N600 that I mentioned earlier was a motorcycle engine and 
transmission design.  The previous S600/S800 was two seater sports car 
(looked British), with dual overhead cam, roller crank, roller wrist pins, 
roller distributor shaft bushings, etc. At more than 9.5K redline, it got 
60+HP out of 600cc/36cubic-inch.  And constant tinkering.  Meanwhile, the 
Toyota S800 looked similar, but had essentially a lawnmower engine.)



There is a fine line between not having what a specific customer needs V 
making them make choices.


Radio Shack made some mistakes.  Ranging from not having the 80x24 and 
full memory management for CP/M in the Model 1 (not fixed until Model 
FOUR), to not having a "100% compatible" PC quickly enough.  They were not 
the only ones to think that making a "better" compatible machine would be 
preferable to making a clone.  (cf. DEC Rainbow, Sirius/Victor 9000, TI 
Professional)
I don't know why the company went under.  I doubt that their computer line 
was the sole cause.


They had a good run, and we are the better for having experienced it.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk]

Glen Slick via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk
 wrote:

Interesting.  HP made ISA card versions of early (or actually, pre-)
HP9000-300 that were designated as "Basic Language Processors", hosting a
68000 and having GPIB I/O.  Interesting beasts. I believe that they were
able to take control of the ISA bus for at least some functions; they were
fast for their time, and it was easy to share GPIB-acquired data with the
MSDOS world.

The HP 82324A coprocessor card wasn't an ISA bus master card. Software
running on the host PC implemented some of the I/O interface. When
software on the coprocessor card made some I/O accesses the
coprocessor card could be frozen while software running on the host PC
completed the I/O access.

Hewlett-Packard Journal, April 1992
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/pdfs/IssuePDFs/1992-04.pdf
Page 110, A High-Performance Measurement Coprocessor for Personal Computers
This article describes the second and faster version of the card based
on the 68030.

Thank you, I stand corrected!

carlos.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk]

W2HX via cctalk wrote:

The first personal computer I ever came in contact with was the TRS-80 Model 1 
(Level II) at a friend of my father's in Long Island around 1979. I learned to 
program basic at his house and practiced during the summer at my junior high 
school that had a few Model 1's for kids to work with. The school let me come 
in and play.

With my Bar Mitzvah money in 1980 I bought my first computer, TRS-80 model III 
(I think it cost me $1200).  I learned a LOT on that machine. I belonged to 
LICA (long island computer association) and one of the guys there operated a 
TRS-80 business computer. I can't remember what model, (II, 12, 16, etc) but it 
ran Xenix. He had 2 modems and two phone lines at his house connected to it and 
granted access to club members. I built a micromint 300 baud acoustic coupler 
kit, connected my TRS-80 Model III to the phone and over to his Xenix machine.

I was hooked and learn a LOT about *nix style operating systems spending HOURS 
tying up the only phone line in our house connected to it. Really formative 
years for me.

When I left for college, I brought with me the TRS-80 4P. Nice little machine, 
did all my papers on it.

All that "fragmentation" to me was wonderful. Different models, different 
capabilities it was magical!

73 Eugene W2HX

I see that the actual fragmentation is about how each and everyone got 
in touch with computers, personal or mainframe or whatever! Me, I was in 
junior high and usually understood everything in the math class by the 
first 15 minutes, after which I would become restless (bored) and the 
teacher would send me several buildings away to inquire about the room 
temperature of the computer room, which hosted an HP3000 system with 
several terminals (that included primitive graphics capabilities via 
serial connection!).  It was 1978, and I learned BASIC right there. 
Afterwards, it was Apple II and their Franklin clones as a freshman, 
running UCSD Pascal... in 1982.  Later it was the Z80 card in the same 
computers, running CPM, but just for the sake of using the Z80 assembler 
tools.  And we were using also the said Apple II to impersonate card 
readers that would send jobs to the IBM 4381, as a sophomore... My dad 
bought me an HP71B calculator in 1984, and that really was when my 
numerical math skills progressed.  I still do that for a living.  And 
the height of my BS years... getting to run MATLAB in an IBM-AT with a 
math co-processor.  Later, as a teacher, getting my first BITNET email 
account in 1987, learning XENIX, wiring phonenet for the Mac network at 
the university, then as a grad student (1989) using VAX machines at 
UW-Madison, but also Apollo machines, Sun 4/50  machines, and HP-300 
machines... and in1990, I telnet-ed to UCSD to run jobs in a Cray at 
UCSD...  whoa, such memories...


Carlos.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Interesting.  HP made ISA card versions of early (or actually, pre-)
> HP9000-300 that were designated as "Basic Language Processors", hosting a
> 68000 and having GPIB I/O.  Interesting beasts. I believe that they were
> able to take control of the ISA bus for at least some functions; they were
> fast for their time, and it was easy to share GPIB-acquired data with the
> MSDOS world.

The HP 82324A coprocessor card wasn't an ISA bus master card. Software
running on the host PC implemented some of the I/O interface. When
software on the coprocessor card made some I/O accesses the
coprocessor card could be frozen while software running on the host PC
completed the I/O access.

Hewlett-Packard Journal, April 1992
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/pdfs/IssuePDFs/1992-04.pdf
Page 110, A High-Performance Measurement Coprocessor for Personal Computers
This article describes the second and faster version of the card based
on the 68030.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk]

Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 15:59 Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:


I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K.

In high-level conceptual term, maybe, depending on the software.

In term of the actual capabilities of the hardware, the Z80 was firmly in
control of _everything_ in the machine, including control over the MC68000,
while the MC68000 had no direct control over anything but its MMU (built
from TTL) and memory. If code running on the MC68000 wants to talk to
anything at all, disk, tape, console, printer, serial ports, etc., all it
can do is politely request that of the Z80. In that sense it's like the CPU
of a CDC 6600, which can't do anything without the PPUs

Interesting.  HP made ISA card versions of early (or actually, pre-)  
HP9000-300 that were designated as "Basic Language Processors", hosting 
a 68000 and having GPIB I/O.  Interesting beasts. I believe that they 
were able to take control of the ISA bus for at least some functions; 
they were fast for their time, and it was easy to share GPIB-acquired 
data with the MSDOS world.

RE: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[W2HX via cctalk]

The first personal computer I ever came in contact with was the TRS-80 Model 1 
(Level II) at a friend of my father's in Long Island around 1979. I learned to 
program basic at his house and practiced during the summer at my junior high 
school that had a few Model 1's for kids to work with. The school let me come 
in and play.

With my Bar Mitzvah money in 1980 I bought my first computer, TRS-80 model III 
(I think it cost me $1200).  I learned a LOT on that machine. I belonged to 
LICA (long island computer association) and one of the guys there operated a 
TRS-80 business computer. I can't remember what model, (II, 12, 16, etc) but it 
ran Xenix. He had 2 modems and two phone lines at his house connected to it and 
granted access to club members. I built a micromint 300 baud acoustic coupler 
kit, connected my TRS-80 Model III to the phone and over to his Xenix machine. 

I was hooked and learn a LOT about *nix style operating systems spending HOURS 
tying up the only phone line in our house connected to it. Really formative 
years for me.

When I left for college, I brought with me the TRS-80 4P. Nice little machine, 
did all my papers on it.

All that "fragmentation" to me was wonderful. Different models, different 
capabilities it was magical!

73 Eugene W2HX

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> D'ya mean like an automobile company making more than one model?  Surely
> there is no need for Toyota to make both a Corolla AND a Camry!
>
>
Hmm... not really sure about that comparison. After all, it's not like the
Corolla and Camry need different fuel and/or travel on separate roads.
Plus, I expect that despite their many differences there are probably quite
a few fundamental similarities (similar stereos, HVAC controls, brake
components, etc).

The Model 1 was a wild venture into a field that they knew little about,
> and didn't know what to expect.
> Ask Allison about what they expected.
> It turned out that what they made was surprisingly close to correct for
> people like US.
> Well, other than 16 lines by 64 characters of B, and a memory map that
> was not compatible with CP/M.
>

I guess they fixed that by the time the 4 came along.



> But what about pocket computers, PDAs, calculators?  Have to come out with
> some offerings there.
>

Well, like I said before. I think you could easily dismiss the calculators
and PDAs, since they were more of an appliance (i.e. create text documents
that are easily interchangeable with other machines). Heck even a lot of
the early PDAs could create spreadsheets that were compatible with Lotus
1-2-3, even moreso in some cases they were built in applications.


>
> Would they have been more successful if the model 2000 had been a PC
> clone, instead of "better than"?
>

Well, in some respects they eventually managed to do that with the Tandy
1000s... some incompatibilities aside.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines

The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the 
same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional cards to allow 
them to run Xenix.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Geoff Oltmans via cctalk wrote:

D'oh!  I knew that. But still, even more fragmentation...


And, don't forget the Tandy 10!   (oops, too late, already forgotten)
1978, built by ADDS (Applied Digital Data Systems)
$8995
8080
48K RAM 
2 8" drives

ADOS

Did they sell enough of them to recoup the cost of the product 
announcement?

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K.


On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

In high-level conceptual term, maybe, depending on the software.
In term of the actual capabilities of the hardware, the Z80 was firmly in
control of _everything_ in the machine, including control over the MC68000,
while the MC68000 had no direct control over anything but its MMU (built
from TTL) and memory. If code running on the MC68000 wants to talk to
anything at all, disk, tape, console, printer, serial ports, etc., all it
can do is politely request that of the Z80. In that sense it's like the CPU
of a CDC 6600, which can't do anything without the PPUs


So, the Z80 ran CP/M and TRS-DOS, functioning as in I/O coprocessor for 
the 68000, . . .


As in small business, which is "subordinate",
engineering or administration?


A friend of a friend was very proud of his Z80/68000 Cromemco.  He was a 
little offended when I compared it to the Radio Shack Model 16.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 15:59 Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K.


In high-level conceptual term, maybe, depending on the software.

In term of the actual capabilities of the hardware, the Z80 was firmly in
control of _everything_ in the machine, including control over the MC68000,
while the MC68000 had no direct control over anything but its MMU (built
from TTL) and memory. If code running on the MC68000 wants to talk to
anything at all, disk, tape, console, printer, serial ports, etc., all it
can do is politely request that of the Z80. In that sense it's like the CPU
of a CDC 6600, which can't do anything without the PPUs

The Model 16 was developed
> independently of the Model II.


The Model 16 was developed as an expansion of the already-existing Model
II, with a few other changes like half-height floppy drives that were later
implemented on the Model 12 also.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk wrote:

common architecture. Do you think that if they had, say, revised and
extended the Model I system to color/80 column that the rest would have
been mostly redundant?


D'ya mean like an automobile company making more than one model?  Surely 
there is no need for Toyota to make both a Corolla AND a Camry!


The Model 1 was a wild venture into a field that they knew little about, 
and didn't know what to expect.

Ask Allison about what they expected.
It turned out that what they made was surprisingly close to correct for 
people like US.
Well, other than 16 lines by 64 characters of B, and a memory map that 
was not compatible with CP/M.



But, that's not where they would expect the big money to be.

So, they made a bigger "business" computer, the Model 2, with 8" drives.
It could even run CP/M, for those who didn't appreciate Model 2 TRS-DOS 
(which is NOT closely related to TRS-DOS (by Randy Cook))



Then they upgraded the model 1 to reduce the cords and cables, and made 
the Model 3.  I don't know whether the resemblance to the Northstar 
Dimension was deliberate.


They made a 68000 co-processor for the Model 2, creating the models 12 and 
16.


They needed a low-end machine with color, games, cartridges, etc. 
Following a Motorola applicatoin note, they made the "Color Computer".
Since it was solely for games, etc., and not intended to compete with 
their other models [HA!], there was "no need" for 80 column, no need for 
composite video, no need for a decent keyboard, . . .


But what about pocket computers, PDAs, calculators?  Have to come out with 
some offerings there.


Howzbout a tablet of some sort, for wannabe journalists?  Kyoto Ceramics 
had just the thing, ready for re-branding.


Oh, and then they modified the Model 3.  The Model 4 is the same, EXCEPT:
80x24 video, a "Control key" on the keyboard, memory map with RAM all the 
way, so it can run CP/M, AND, they changed it from battleship gray (they 
called that "Mercedes Silver") to white.


Model 4P is same, in a luggable case.
(The Elcompco earliest machines were a model 3 motherboard in a 
Halliburton attache case, until the 5150 came out)



Frankly, although I agree that they made MANY mistakes (such as not doing 
the 80x24 upgrade a lot earlier!), I think that it was a fairly reasonable 
suite of models.


Would they have been more successful if the model 2000 had been a PC 
clone, instead of "better than"?



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Geoff Oltmans via cctalk]

> On Apr 26, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines
> 
> The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the 
> same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional cards to 
> allow them to run Xenix.

D'oh!  I knew that. But still, even more fragmentation... 

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

I do have a workslate!   Odd   portable...  Thin we  have a printer too  for it?
Ed#  www.smecc.org 
 
In a message dated 4/26/2018 2:56:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 
 > > TRS-80 Model 100, 102, 200 (rebadged Kyoceras)

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
> But... i have   yet  to see a  Kyocera...   Ed#

NEC 8201, Olivetti M10 were more of the Kyoto Ceramics machines.
NEC was about 3/8" thicker, but had much more expansion capability.
8085, 8x40 LCD,

Competing unrelated machines included the Epson HC-20 (painted gray and 
katakana character set removed for the US HX-20) 4x20 6301, and later the 
Workslate (spreadsheet oriented machine!)

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/26/2018 05:58 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>
> On 04/26/2018 05:51 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines
>> The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were 
>> the same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional cards 
>> to allow them to run Xenix.
> I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K.
THe reason for that is the 68K was available long after the Z80 (about 4
years).
So the base TRS-80 had already evolved to the Mod-II by then.

>    The Model 16 was developed
> independently of the Model II.  While Tandy had a version of Xenix to 
> sell for it
> it shipped with TRSDOS-16.  It also ran CP/M-68K rather nicely.  It was 
> a good
> machine destined to die when Tandy decided not to be a computer company.
That and the base TRS 80 both saturated the market and also left many with a
bad taste when it came to expansion... least till they sorted it out.

I'd left there before long before it imploded.


Allison


> bill
>
>

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 04/26/2018 05:51 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines
> The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the 
> same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional cards to 
> allow them to run Xenix.

I believe the Z-80 was subordinate to the M68K.   The Model 16 was developed
independently of the Model II.  While Tandy had a version of Xenix to 
sell for it
it shipped with TRSDOS-16.  It also ran CP/M-68K rather nicely.  It was 
a good
machine destined to die when Tandy decided not to be a computer company.

bill

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

> TRS-80 Model 100, 102, 200 (rebadged Kyoceras)


On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:

But... i have   yet  to see a  Kyocera...   Ed#


NEC 8201, Olivetti M10  were more of the Kyoto Ceramics machines.
NEC was about 3/8" thicker, but had much more expansion capability.
8085, 8x40 LCD,

Competing unrelated machines included the Epson HC-20 (painted gray and 
katakana character set removed for the US HX-20) 4x20 6301, and later the 
Workslate (spreadsheet oriented machine!)

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

> On Apr 26, 2018, at 14:25, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> TRS-80 Model II and 16, 68k based "business" machines

The Models II and 12 were Z80 based machines. The models 16 and 6000 were the 
same Z80 based machines with 68k subsystems added via additional cards to allow 
them to run Xenix.

Re: TRS-80 Fragmentation

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

But... i have   yet  to see a  Kyocera...   Ed#
 
In a message dated 4/26/2018 2:25:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 
TRS-80 Model 100, 102, 200 (rebadged Kyoceras)